Vijayalakshmi vs The Govt. of Tamil Nadu

M. Chockalingam, J.—This Habeas Corpus Petition challenges the order of detention made by the second respondent in No.

C.P.O/T.C/I.S/D.O. No. 23/2010 dated 5.3.2010, whereby the son of the petitioner by name Manoharan @ Manoj was ordered to be detained

under the Act 14 of 1982 branding him as ""Goonda"".

Affidavit filed in support of the petition and all the materials including the order under challenge is perused.

It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in four adverse cases

viz. (i) K.K. Nagar Police Station Crime No. 22 of 2007 for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Fort Police Station Crime No. 803

of 2007 for the offences under Sections 397 of the Indian Penal Code @ 392 read with 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Palakkarai Police

Station Crime No. 76 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 387, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and (iv) Palakkarai Police Station Crime No.

1185 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and also one ground case viz. Crime No. 269 of 2010

registered by Palakkarai police station for the offence u/s 392 read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code for the occurrence which taken place on

10.2.2010, the Detaining Authority, after recording his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order, has made the order under challenge.

Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel raised three points, which, according to him, would suffice to set aside the

order. Firstly, a representation was made on 18.3.2010, but the same was not considered at all. Secondly, there is a discrepancy noticed in Form

95 in respect of the weapon of crime and also the notice served upon the detenu. Thirdly, when there is no imminent possibility, the Authorities

have pointed out that there was a imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, but no material much less cogent material was placed by

the Authorities to come to such conclusion. Under such circumstances, the order under challenge has got to be set aside.

This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. This Court paid its anxious consideration on the

submissions made by either side.

As could be seen from the order, the Detaining Authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial

to the maintenance of public order on the strength of four adverse cases and one ground case, which are narrated above. It is also not disputed by

the learned Counsel appearing for the State that the representation was made on 18.3.2010 and the same was received on 25.3.2010 and

disposed of on 9.4.2010. It is not correct to state that the representation was not considered and disposed of. Hence the Court is unable to see

any force in the first point raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Secondly, insofar as the discrepancy found in the description of weapon of crime is concerned, as could be seen from Form 95 and also the

copy served upon the detenu, the same cannot be urged as a point. It cannot be said to be the document relied on, but only the document referred

to. Hence the said contention also cannot be countenanced.

Insofar as third point is concerned, the Authorities have stated in the detention order that there was a imminent possibility of detenu coming out

on bail. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that insofar as other bail applications filed by the detenu in Crime Nos. 22 of 2007. 803 of

2007, 76 of 2009 and 1185 of 2009 are concerned, he was let on bail. Under such circumstances, when the bail application filed by the detenu is

pending in other case, there is a likelihood of detenu coming out on bail. Hence the Authorities have applied their mind and made the observations.

In view of the above, this Court is unable to see any force in anyone of the points. In such circumstances, the Habeas Corpus Petition is

dismissed.